| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen): Does the hon. Lady agree that if Yorkshire Water had had first-class management last year, we would not have had a crisis because there was not a drought? There was water in many areas in Yorkshire, which Yorkshire Water said it would take five years to put pipelines in to transport. If we had had a first-class regulator who was doing his job properly, he would have urged them on to manage the company better, to ensure that leakages were reduced and that people in Yorkshire received the service for which they pay.
Mrs. Jackson: What the hon. Lady says endorses the concern and anger that has been felt by public representatives of all political views in Yorkshire about the poor management last year.
I would make two points in response. First, there were some extraordinary management decisions. In the middle of the crisis, when morale was at rock bottom, Yorkshire Water management continued the process of contracting out--outsourcing. On 4 August, in the middle of the crisis, it held a meeting with workers to say that the jobs of workers in leakage control teams in South Yorkshire were on the line. Is that not an extraordinary management decision, when everyone needs to join in and do what they can to tackle leakage? Yes, there were some extraordinary management decisions, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that the actions could have been taken before last year and then we should not have had the problem that we had last year.
Secondly, what is the point of the regulator having powers to monitor the service and financial indicators if he is either unwilling or unable to take action to ensure
that companies keep to their plans? He would say that in mid-November, which was right at the end of the crisis--it had even started to rain--he did decide to act. He was spurred on by the imminent public inquiry into the emergency drought order seeking permission to impose rota cuts.
The regulator wrote to Yorkshire Water stating that he intended to investigate its performance--in private. The only record that we have of that letter was leaked to The Times and he still will not make public the letter or what he was particularly concerned about. We know from the one in The Times that he was particularly concerned that the plight of customers
The regulator recognised that the problem went back some years and did not start just last summer. In the letter he announced that he was setting up a team which would report its findings in January. What team? I rang the regulator on Friday and I was told that it would not include any senior executives from the company, which is what had been said in the letter--if there were any of the old ones left--but that his team included just his own staff and appointed advisers. What have they been doing since 12 November and who are the consultant advisers? How much are they being paid and what are the inquiry's terms of reference? None of that information was forthcoming.
On 7 March, Mr. Horsman from the Mid-Yorkshire chamber of commerce received a letter from Mr. Byatt explaining that he would not attend the Leeds inquiry because his own inquiry was under way. In the letter, he said that the teams had been appointed and had started in January and that his inquiries would be completed in April. I wondered this morning if that was what the Secretary of State meant when he spoke about bringing competition into the water industry. As soon as one inquiry is set up, it has to compete with another.
Will there be a race to the finishing line? John Uff has given 30 April, but can Ian Byatt get there first? Is there a third report in preparation and completely under wraps? We must not forget Mr. Nixon, the Department of the Environment inspector from the Dewsbury public inquiry held on 12 to 14 November. His report was on the Secretary of State's desk by 24 November, but despite persistent questioning in the House, nobody saw it until 16 January when it was reluctantly placed in the regional office in Yorkshire and Humberside for anyone who was interested enough to go and get it. Even then, it came with a letter stating that the Secretary of State saw no useful purpose in going further into the questions that it raised because the application for the emergency drought order had been withdrawn. That two-day public inquiry was a waste of time.
We need answers from the Government about the part that they played in last year's crisis and in the period running up to it. What meetings took place between Ministers and Yorkshire Water throughout last year? What ultimatums were given and when by any Minister and especially by the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration whose bulging postbag on this issue must have been a great embarrassment to him? What pressure was brought to bear by Tory Members in Yorkshire's marginal constituencies who saw their chance of re-election draining away like the water
supply? What discussions have taken place between Ministers and the regulator about whether they should participate in the public inquiry?
I believe that neither Ministers nor Ian Byatt dare to face the public. The regulator will not make his letters and his actions public because they endorse his failure as a regulator. The problems were not of one summer--they are long standing--nor do they relate to one poor company. The Ministers and the regulator must answer in public how they will stop the rampant profiteering in this industry. It is for them to say what they will do to make regulation of this public service--a much better description than utility--work for customers, not for companies.
I wish Kevin Bond and his new team at Yorkshire Water well. He has started this job today. I am pleased that he comes from the environmental side of the industry, because he well understands the interface between the different elements of the industry: water, drainage and sewerage. I do not want this debate to add to the significant job that he has started today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison):
The issue of water supply in Yorkshire is of concern to the public in Yorkshire and it will assist hon. Members if I outline a brief factual account of the background to this. Rainfall across the Yorkshire region between April and October 1995 was only 59 per cent. of the long-term average; rainfall in the west of Yorkshire, where Yorkshire Water's reservoirs are situated, was even lower, at between 46 per cent. and 52 per cent. of the long-term average; and approximately half the company's water resources are obtained from these reservoirs.
Rainfall continues to be disappointingly low. Following nine months of rainfall at or below 50 per cent. of long-term average for west Yorkshire, January was again 50 per cent. of average; February was just above average; and, so far in March, it is about 58 per cent. of average--with less than 50 per cent. of average in Calderdale and Kirklees.
In the autumn of 1995, Yorkshire Water drew up plans to secure water supplies through the winter of 1995 and the summer of 1996. These plans were set against the possibility of the winter being as dry as ever recorded and a repeat of the exceptional conditions last summer. The company has identified a possible daily shortfall of some 132 million litres.
Mrs. Helen Jackson:
I am sure that the Minister recognises that the proposals to establish a better grid to move water around the county was in existence two years before the summer of last year.
Mr. Clappison:
I am setting out the company's plans in response to those conditions that I have described. It
These schemes are also based on further drought orders and time-limited variations to existing abstraction licences on the rivers Derwent, Ure, Wharfe and Ouse. The Environment Agency is considering the licence variations. Drought order applications have been handled expeditiously by my Department. There are currently11 drought orders extant in the Yorkshire Water area and one application is under consideration. Another drought order application, concerning the River Derwent, is still the subject of discussion between the company, the Environment Agency and English Nature in view of the particular environmental issues involved. My Department will proceed with its consideration when the company indicates that it is ready to proceed.
"raises serious questions about decisions taken by the company in the years leading up to this summer as well as the action or inaction in response to warning signs".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |